Anotherealm Forum - Print Page

Anotherealm Forum
http://anotherealm.net/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Polls >> Star Wars or Star Trek?
http://anotherealm.net/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1265645225

Message started by Webbie on Feb 8^th, 2010, 6:07am

Title: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by Webbie on Feb 8^th, 2010, 6:07am

C'mon, which is your favorite?

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by Gary A. Markette on Feb 8^th, 2010, 7:51am

Once again our webmaster extraordinaire posits a question with many layers. Just a straight pick? If so, I prefer "Wars." If not, how does one choose? Which set of Star Wars versus which Star Trek? Oh the possibilities! Here are a few:

Star Wars (the first three) vs. Star Trek (Original cast)

Star Wars (the second three) vs. Star Trek (Original cast)

Star Wars (the first three) vs. Star Trek (Picard)

Star Wars (the second three) vs. Star Trek (Picard)

And howzabout Deep Space Nine? Or Enterprize? Or the various Star Trek movies? Aaaaauuuuuuggggghhhh!

Me, I like Babylon Five.

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by Jeangoldstrom on Feb 8^th, 2010, 7:43pm

Of the Star Trek stories, I liked Deep Space Nine the best.
-- Jean

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by Webbie on Feb 8^th, 2010, 7:57pm

Gary A. Markette wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010, 7:51am:

Ok, fixed it! :)

We can get to the other questions later!

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by Readlorey on Aug 17^th, 2010, 2:14am

I liked them all, but I grew up on Kirk. I had such a thing for Spock. heh

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by balero on Apr 21^st, 2012, 9:04am

Re Star Trek[size=12]

When the orignal star trek series came out I think around the 1960's
I watched the weekly serial, which changed its format each time.
Everyone was gobsmacked this was the real Sci-fi. The spaceship
rolling around; Capt Kirk was a young man yes, and Spock. We were sad when the series came to an end. Hoolywood jumps on
the success bandwagon later, we are now faced with old men trying
to be tough, special effects which were never the same as the original.
But like Jaws l,2,3,4,5, and goodness knows how many more, we
got fed up with the shark biting smeones leg off.

Come back the real Mccoy even as a re-run.

Capt Kirk has actually written a sci-fi book, himself under his
real name.

Balero

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by Webbie on Apr 21^st, 2012, 10:41am

Yea, it just isn't the same as it once was. All the special effect in the world don't make up for a bad script or poor plot.

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by Jeangoldstrom on Apr 21^st, 2012, 9:05pm

Amen, Webbie.

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by monsoonster on Apr 21^st, 2012, 9:33pm

I read someplace that Star Trek (pick any of them, they're all bad, but the original series is really, really bad; but, hey. It is nearly 50 years old) that abu gharib used the series as ~~a tool of torture~~... I mean, an enhanced Hallmark ~~interrogation~~ flower-petal-throwing ceremony. I read that in the end, they were wanting their, "Adam West." Now that's a Western victory, if I ever heard one.

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by balero on Apr 22^nd, 2012, 9:43am

With due respects to Moonster and other respondents,it's true to say
judging on todays knowledge Star Trek was wanting in many respects
But remember go back just a few years before and female actresses
had to have one leg on the floor before getting into bed with a male
actor, the censor would not allow any immorality or naked forms on film.
Therefore look at Star Trek as a group of actors taking Mr and Mrs. average out of their mundane lives and travelling the stars weekly, they knew it was a fix bvut a fix that worked successfully for Hollywood to say to the shareholders - Look people loved this hokum - let's soup it up and make some dough.

Balero

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by monsoonster on Apr 22^nd, 2012, 1:09pm

balero wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012, 9:43am:

My answer was tongue in cheek. That said, there have been many science fiction shows since. Some better, some as good, some derivative of that show. Yes, Star Trek broke ground with respect to women and other-than-white-America culture. But each story was basically a mythological morality play. Star Wars plays out more like a fantasy Mystery Play; and seeks to create a "religious" (I use the word loosely) feel apart from what is/was known by the Western world.

But to talk of Star Trek (almost 50 years old) and Star Wars (episodes IV through VI, 30 to 35 years old) is like comparing a Model-T Ford with a Studebaker. In other words, a dwindlingly-small audience even knows, or cares, anymore about the discussion of these things. Sad, on one hand, but that's how things are, on the other.

I think it's be entirely appropriate to talk about Leonard Nimoy's guest appearance on "The Fringe" and all the Star Trek in-jokes that played out in those episodes. I'm a little surprised no one ha brought it up; unless I missed the posting.

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by Jeangoldstrom on Apr 23^rd, 2012, 9:12pm

"Therefore look at Star Trek as a group of actors taking Mr and Mrs. average out of their mundane lives..."

Well, not exactly. By the time of the advent of Star Trek in the 1960s, there was a strong nationwide science fiction community. At that time there were still a number of pulp zines feeding the fen monthly doses of the likes of Heinlein, Bradbury, etc. The magazine F&SF was new and thriving. There were well-attended regional s-f cons. When Star Trek appeared, we fen hoped maybe TV was going to catch up with the magazine and book media and present some good s-f. (The movies had failed us miserably.)

Yes, Star Trek wasn't great. But it was _something._ A lot of people were pulling for it. After all, it wasn't "Dodge City" or "Hawaii 5-0" when pretty much everything else was.

Then, a relatively few years later, "Star Wars" arrived, and, upon seeing the first film, we thought our time had come, at last.

Upon seeing the subsequent ones, we realized it hadn't. Oh well..

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by monsoonster on Apr 24^th, 2012, 8:51pm

When a youth, I watched shows like "Dark Shadows" when I could. I always like the vampiness of it. And it was scary, to my under 10 year old mind, as well. However, upon catching it later, one episode, I cringed. lol

I also watched "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea" and "Land Of The Giants", as a young'un. They were micro science fiction shows, at best, but still, seemed so "far out" at the time. I bought season three of "Voyage" and found it more espionage laden than sci-fi; I even had to smile at the sight of regular land-line phones used and swivel chairs that fell over when something happened to the sub. Bolt those chairs down!! Star Trek had the same issues (with chairs), and when you think of it, the Enterprise was really nothing more than a hopped-up submarine.

I used to read Heinlein, Asimov, Clark, Verne, HG Wells, Bradbury, and others, whose names at the moment escape me. I haven't reread anything by Heinlein, but did reread something by Asimov; other than the science, the rest was not very well written. I reread "Journey to the Center of the Earth" a few years back, a book I read twice, back to back, when 10 years old. I thought it was a monumental piece. However, after the rereading, I was like, ouch; more of an earth-science field guide, than anything. Wells and Clark hold up well. I love Bradbury and am reading "Machineries of Joy" short story collection at the moment. Although, I don't understand how he is considered -- how shall I put this? -- what I would consider science fiction, in the purest sense of the word. At most, his science fiction stories seem to be cautionary tales of "don't get too wrapped up in technology and miss the joy and sacredness that is around you everyday". "Fahrenheit" prophesied reality TV, the cell phone, and the internet; the burning of books seemed secondary to the actual tale. "No independent thought allowed here." His "Martian Chronicles" seemed to be more, "go all that way to find what they thought they didn't have at home, but in fact did." Human stories dressed in space suits and rockets shining on the hillside. Everything he handled was expertly done.

But as far as now, in today's environment, I'll take the science weirdness-based-on-fact any day. Something that pushes the boundary. Something that is not entirely derivative of yesterday's successes, something that seems more fantasy than fact; and today, that program is, "The Fringe".

I liked episodes 1-3 of Star Wars. Whenever I hear people poo-poo it, all they do is say they didn't like it. When asked to explain why, they will say, bad writing, bad acting, etc. And my response to that is, really? Did you actually watch episodes 4-6? Episode 4, to be honest, was badly acted; Mark Hammell in the Falcon with the helmet on, Obi wan telling him to feel the force, to Leia Kissing Han on the lips (a smack, really) before swinging over the abysmal machinery to safety, to Luke in his "feel the force" moment to take out the Dark Star.... Bad, bad acting. I mean really. Come on. Bad acting. 5 and 6, as well, which I could point out numerous scenes. BUT, it was/is more fantasy than sci fi. Something not seen but written about in pulp novels. Like you said, Jean, yay. Episodes 1-3 were less fantasy and more political, all of which had been hinted at in varying degrees in 4-6. So why, after seeing 4-6, did people poo-poo (and still do) 1-3, especially when all it did was realize hints from the previous 3 movies? I have an hypothesis: I think that when people saw 4-6, it was new. The technology was new, the ideas were new, and most likely, those watching it young, and if not, young enough that the show made them feel young. Then what happened? Roughly 20 years went by. People had no doubt endlessly rewatched episodes 4-6, expecting the same feelings to resurface when 1-3 were viewed. But during that time, the technology was used over and over and it wasn't new anymore, it was old hat (even kid shows were using it, or forms of the technology that made us go W.OW in '77). And people got jaded; cynical, because of it. I mean, look at the technology that was first an "Oh, W.OW! LOOK AT THAT!" when "The Matrix" first came out. What happened afterwards? Commercials were began using it, not to mention what seemed every other movie; even non-science fiction type movies. Because of that, cynicism for that series of movies crept in even quicker. Back to Star Wars: I really, really love episode 3. I consider that one the equal, if not better, than episode 4.

W.ow. I didn't mean to write so much. lol. As you can see, I am not made for social media type sites. My thoughts are bigger than 140 characters.

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by Webbie on Apr 28^th, 2012, 11:31am

Quote:

"Fahrenheit" prophesied reality TV, the cell phone, and the internet; the burning of books seemed secondary to the actual tale. "No independent thought allowed here."

Kinda reminds me of "Political Correctness" in our present time. As evidenced by media including the presentation of the correct world view.
Which ads a bit of "Big Brother" to it all. On the other hand isn't Janet Nepoliano [sp] (Homeland Security) referred to as "Big Sis"?

Nah, just a coincidence.

:o

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by monsoonster on Apr 28^th, 2012, 10:40pm

Webbie wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012, 11:31am:

Quote:

"Fahrenheit" prophesied reality TV, the cell phone, and the internet; the burning of books seemed secondary to the actual tale. "No independent thought allowed here."

Must be a coincidence, since the only place I have ever seen her called that was on Alex Jones' site, Infowars.

Title: Re: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Post by ente per ente on Apr 29^th, 2012, 10:17pm

For Gary A. Markette:

Quote:

Me, I like Babylon Five.

Me too, indeed...eh,eh ;)